Asian Journal of Latin American Studies (2016) Vol. 29 No.

4: 55-78

The Extradition of Colombians from the

Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense
of Colombians with Orders of Extradition
(DECOPEX)

Julio Ramírez Montañez*1

Pontifical Bolivarian University, Colombia

Ramírez M., Julio (2016), “The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective
of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition
(DECOPEX)”

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to present an analytical approach on
the process of the extradition of Colombians as requested by
international courts of justice, with reference to the author’s
professional experience in the Foundation for the Defense of
Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX). This
non-governmental organization was a space for the relatives of the
persons arrested as a result of the extradition request from a state. The
prisoners themselves were held in Pavilion Seven of the maximum
security prison of Combita. The primary activities of DECOPEX were
focused on four strategic areas: 1] the defense of the fundamental rights
of the inmates and their families; 2] the development of a legal strategy
at the national and international levels; 3] the lobbying of government
bodies with the aim of regulating the legal procedure of extradition; and
4] making known to the members of society the problem that some
people had been wrongfully arrested.

Key Words: extradition, legal proceedings, international cooperation,

non-governmental organization, DECOPEX Foundation

* Julio Ramírez Montañez is professor of International Business Administration Faculty,

head of Research Group of International Business Administration Faculty (GRICANI)
at Pontifical Bolivarian University, Seccional Bucaramanga, Colombia (Email:
julio.ramirez@upb.edu.co).
56❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

O VERVIEW
The aim of this article is to present the result of an analysis of the
issue of extradition of Colombians requested by international courts of
justice taking as reference their own experiences in the framework of
the extradition process in Colombia under the direction of a
non-governmental organization known as the foundation for the Defense of
Colombians Orders in extradition (DECOPEX). This document does not
intend to present any criticism to the extradition or as an instrument
of international cooperation or as an administrative procedure in the national
territory, the aim is to generate a document that will serve as a reference
source for future academic research.
In order to comply with the purpose path, in the first section of the
document provides an overview of the extradition as an instrument of
legal cooperation, presenting a brief transnational conceptual analysis on
extradition and on the types of existing extradition. In the second section
of the article presents the historical evolution of the extradition in Colombia,
similarly discusses the legal principles that govern the handling of the
extradition, listed below are the phases through which the proceedings
take place in the national territory and the institutions that are part of
this process.
The final section of the article focuses its attention on presenting the
experiences in the professional experience in the management of the
Foundation DECOPEX where they sought to protect the respect for
the fundamental rights of persons requested extradition held in the Pavilion
Seven maximum-security prison Combita, as well as the development
of a legal strategy in the national and international level which was led
to the bringing of legal actions of habeas corpus and guardianship in
order to find that the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, to consider
legally each of the cases and not given simply the administrative formalities
that performed until now for your approval. For its part the strategy
in the international arena was based in filing a claim before the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
The methodology designed for the development of this document was
divided into two phases. The first of them on an experimental basis
taking as a reference the professional experience of its own in the direction
of DECOPEX, where there was an engagement with the process of
hundreds of Colombians requested in extradition to which they represented
before governmental agencies by ensuring their fundamental rights. The
second phase of this document was focused on the collection of written
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙57

material in the direction of the Foundation DECOPEX and on a review

of literature on the subject with the purpose of in favor of the drafting
of an article that had a scientific rigor in the area of international relations.

THE PROCESS OF EXTRADITION

IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA

The processing of the extradition has two main protagonists. The first
of them is represented by the requesting State, which is requesting the
delivery of an individual who seeks to have in their possession for submission
to a criminal process. The second protagonist is the requested State that
is requesting the delivery of that individual (San Martín 2014).
The extradition was conceived as a mechanism for international
cooperation to combat crime and eradicate impunity; it is subject to a
special procedure that concludes with the issuance of an administrative
act of a complex nature, because for their preparation and execution
attend various State organs belonging to both the Executive Branch and
the Judicial Branch of public power (Judgment C-243/09, Constitutional
Court).
The extradition is requested, grants or offers in accordance with public
treaties and in the absence of these will address the provisions of the
domestic law, taking this a residual character in relation to the extradition
treaties signed by the States. Extradition is an instrument of assistance
and international solidarity, generally governed by international treaties
and, in the absence of the latter, by domestic law (Judgment C-243/09,
Constitutional Court).

Historical Background of the Extradition

According to Pollack (1993) the first known case of extradition, goes
back to ancient times and is the one that occurred between the Hittites
and Egypt (1271 A.C.) where a peace treaty was signed between Hatusie,
“Great Chief of Haittí-Ramses”, Grand Chief of Egypt in whose clauses
was established the extradition, of both Egypt and the Hittites (Pollack
1993).
In the middle ages, the extradition was a highly secure way to protect
the assets of both the kings and the feudal lords, since there was a convention
signed by them to ensure the safeguarding of your properties, by means
58❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

of this agreement is delivered to each other the personal enemies, that

trying to flee, were sheltering in different territory which could be extradited
either by the king to the feudal lord and vice versa (Penton 2014).
In the modern age, with the French Revolution is placed in the center
of discussion the rights of hombre and, by this route, in point to international
law and extradition –already with the current contents of your term–
the need to demarcate the political persecution susceptible of the right
of asylum and the persecution by common crime, own of the extradition.
Since the Convention of 29 September 1765 between Carlos III of Spain
and Luis XV of France, speaks of the delivery of the common criminal
by serious crimes, but always without excluding delivery for political reasons
(Penton 2014).
But it is not until the nineteenth century and with the history of the
French Revolution and the modern State of law that, on the basis of
the “Peace Treaty of Amiens” (1803) between France, Spain and England,
where clearly speaks of common crime and no mention is made of the
policy and, on the basis of the Ley Belgian internal October 1833, outlined
the formal structure and material of the laws of current extradition, referring
exclusively to the delivery of offenders (Penton 2014).
This means that extradition is an institution which has a vast history
of fashioned as legal mechanism that facilitates the judicial cooperation
between various countries. In this way, States have requested historically
to individuals who are in another territory with the aim of opening or
continue a criminal procedure against this.

Conceptual Analysis of the Extradition

Before submitting a study of extradition as a figure of international
cooperation is necessary to analyze it making allusion to some fundamental
conceptual basis. Under this understanding, it will proceed to mention
the concept of extradition and the types that can be identified from
the practice of this procedure.
Initially it may be noted that the word extradition comes from Greek
ex, outside and the Latin traditionis, that means action to deliver specifically
to one or more persons (Pollack 1993).
In the same vein, the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy defines
it as “the procedure by which the authorities of a State to make delivery
of a person to another that the claim for that can be prosecuted criminally
this second or fulfilled in him a penalty already imposed” (SAR 2016).
On the other side, the portal world reference defines the extradition
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙59

“as delivery of refugee or detained in a country to the authorities of

another which claim” (WF 2016).
In Colombia, in the decade of the eighties, important jurists developed
important conceptual contributions to the extradition as a legal figure,
owing to the debate a result of the implementation of the extradition
as the fight against drug trafficking. Attorney Carlos Mario Molina Arrubla
said that the institution of extradition, arose in the light of Public International
Law and is a valuable instrument of battle that must be used by the
States, in its campaign against crime, provided that in such a battle face,
in isolation, to an enemy of international dimensions (Molina 1980).
Another important contribution is made by the eminent panelist Alfonso
Reyes Echandía, who pointed out at the time that the extradition is a
phenomenon which consists basically in the request, offer or delivery
of a prosecuted or sentenced to a State makes to another to continue
against him a process initiated or to make effective in its connection
to a judgment of conviction for offense committed (Kings 1970).
Similarly, Luis Carlos Pérez claims that “Extradition is the act by means
of which the State in whose territory has been refugee responsible for
an offense committed abroad, delivery that subject to state where you
ran the infringement or the State to which belongs the offender” (Pérez
1984).
Finally, it is important to note that in recent years there is an important
conceptual contribution in the year 2008 where it gives you an approach
to the term extradition to the field of international cooperation. In this
regard, the Judgment C-460 of 2008 of the Constitutional Court, the
Judge Nilson Pinilla said that “Extradition is understood as a mechanism
for international cooperation that seeks to combat the crime and avoid
impunity” (Judgment C-460 of 2008).

The Extradition as an Instrument

of Legal Cooperation Transnational
The mechanism of extradition is a mechanism of international judicial
cooperation that many governments around the world have adopted it.
It is understood by International Judicial Cooperation collaboration or
mutual assistance between States, to advance necessary steps in the
development of a process outside the territory of the requesting State
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia 2016).
In the field of International Judicial Cooperation are used as international
instruments those documents through which should raise requests, for
60❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

the fulfilment of the various steps necessary within the judicial or

administrative proceedings of the case. These can be: letters or dispatches,
and notes to various judicial authorities, whether they are national or
foreign (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia 2016).
The procedure for the extradition is framed within the ideal of the
principle of universal criminal justice resulted in a mutual recognition
of judicial decisions and absolute respect for the judicial interpretation
of the domestic law of each state where to ensure respect for the fundamental
rights and guarantees procedural legal-judicial procedure of all States (Calaza
2015).
In this regard, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
said that the obligation of States to cooperate in the field of extradition
is inherent to the aut dedere aut judicare obligation of the mechanism of
repression that stipulated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the
“grave breaches” of these treaties. The State, in whose territory or power
are the accused persons, has the possibility of judging them or handing
it over to the judge another High Contracting Party concerned. This
possibility provides an opportunity for the State to fulfill its obligation
to prosecute or extradite (ICRC 2015).
This option is upheld in the text of article 88, paragraph 2, of the
1977 Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which stipulates
explicitly that, when circumstances permit, the High Contracting Parties
shall cooperate in the field of extradition. This duty implies the obligation
to consider favorably any extradition requested by a country that justifies
his legal interest in the prosecution, if the requirements are met by the
law of the requested State (ICRC 2015).
In the past two decades, the extradition in its broadest sense is understood
as a mechanism for international cooperation that seeks to combat the
crime and avoid impunity. This concept is reflected in the existence of
a formal and solemn act by means of which a State provides grants
or request the delivery of an accused or convicted person, national or
foreign, to another State, for the alleged commission of a crime in the
territory of the requesting State (Calaza and Lopez 2014).
The foregoing, with a view to advancing a process against the person
required or seek the enforcement of a penalty already imposed. However,
it is important to point out that this mechanism cannot be equated with
a criminal process itself and in this regard, the authorities involved in
the process to achieve the handing over for extradition of a person do
not advance a judgment in relation to the innocence or guilt of this
in respect of the offense for which it has been or has been sentenced
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙61

in the syndicated applicant State (Calaza and Lopez 2014).

The international judicial cooperation is based, on the one hand, in
the fight against the crime of States cooperating with the ultimate aim
of avoiding that one of these States to become an area of impunity
to the perpetrators by the mere fact of being in its territory when they
are accused by another State and on the other, in respect for the fundamental
rights and guarantees procedural legal-of each State (Calaza 2015).
The international judicial cooperation requires a greater rapidity in the
persecution and prosecution of the perpetrators of the offenses set forth
in the criminal legislation of the various international legislative bodies,
difficulty it is worsening, still more if it is by the circumstance of the
inevitable double jeopardy to which they were subjected who, having
committed crimes in a given country are, by the circumstance that is,
in the territory of another State (Calaza 2015).

THE PROCESS OF EXTRADITION IN COLOMBIA

Since a few years ago, the figure of the extradition has framed one
of the most important processes in Colombia with regard to the fight
against various offenses such as drug trafficking, however, still today many
do not know how this procedure is performed in the Colombian territory,
therefore in this section of the article presents the historical evolution
of the extradition in Colombia, similarly discusses the legal principles
that govern the handling of the extradition, listed below are the phases
through which the proceedings take place in the national territory and
the institutions that are part of this process.

Historical Evolution Extradition in Colombia

Extradition is a mechanism for international cooperation, and therefore
it is necessary the conclusion of bilateral agreements for their implementation
or the existence of internal rules concerning the procedure. Colombia
has concluded bilateral treaties on extradition with twelve States represented
in Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, France, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Peru, and United Kingdom. Similarly, has signed two multilateral
treaties represented in the Agreement on Extradition, held in Caracas
on 18 July 1911 and the Convention on extradition held in Montevideo
on 26 December 1933 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia 2014).
It is important to start by pointing out that Colombia was, since the
62❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

nineteenth century, one of the first countries to sign international treaties

on combating crime, aware that the offense had to be attacked beyond
its borders and to prevent our country outside refuge of criminals, according
to the reasons provided at that time.
In 1888, Colombia endorses a multilateral treaty on extradition, where
for the first time mentioned the traffic in controlled substances as a
crime and a ground for extradition secures the extradition by administrative
authority as a mechanism applicable (The Time 2014).
In the twentieth century in 1936 enters Colombian law, for the first
time, the subject of the extradition to update and adapt what is already
in international treaties. The extradition of nationals is dealt with in the
Criminal Code that year (The Time 2014).
But it is up to the year 1979 when the term extradition was known
by the majority of Colombians when the then Ambassador of Colombia
in Washington, Virgilio Barco Vargas, subscribes to the extradition treaty
with the United States. In this treaty is established that the Government
may extradite prior concept of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme
Court of Justice (The Time 2014).
Extradition as a tool in the fight against transnational organized crime
by the national government begins to be used in firm from the year
1984 following the assassination of the Minister of Justice Rodrigo Lara
Bonilla in the north of Bogotá. Since that time begin extraditions in
firm, especially toward the United States for crimes related to drug trafficking
and money laundering. It is as well as the 5 January 1985 are extradited
the first five Colombians was United States, including the sports leader
Hernán Botero Moreno (The Time 2014).
The President Virgilio Barco in the year 1989, through a decree of
a state of siege, secures the extradition by administrative authority. That
is to say, the Government autonomously will assume and decide on requests
for extradition to the United States, by suspending for the duration of
the state of emergency, the rules of the Criminal Code and procedure
on extradition. The decree establishing the extradition by administrative
authority is issued on August 18, coinciding with the murder of Luis
Carlos Galán (The Time 2014).
In the year 1991 the Constituent Assembly, for the first time in the
legal history and politics of Colombia, raises the extradition to constitutional
rank and prohibits the surrender of nationals. The extraditions in the
pipeline are denied and prisoners recovered their freedom. In the year
1997 resets the extradition of nationals by a law adopted in fourth debate
by the plenary of the House of Representatives, a situation which remains
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙63

in force until our days (The Time 2014).

At present, the procedure of extradition is regulated in Article 35
Constitution of Colombia (Art. 1 Legislative Act 01 of 1997), where
it is said that “Extradition may be requested to grant or offer in accordance
with public treaties and, in their absence, with the law”.

Classes of Extradition Recognized by the Colombian

Government
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia recognizes six classes
of extradition: active extradition, passive extradition, re-extradition,
extradition in transit, extradition deferred, simplified extradition procedures,
which are explained below:

Active extradition
This type of extradition is called active extradition to the process essentially
jurisdictional through which substance the request that a State to another
State for a person to be delivered is deprived of his liberty with the
object of being subjected to process or to fulfill a custodial sentence
already imposed by judicial authorities of the requesting State (Ministry
of International Relations of Colombia 2014).

Passive extradition
The passive extradition refers to events in which a State is required,
due to his being a fugitive in its territory the accused or prosecuted
for an offense committed in another State or with effects on it, with
a view to its delivery (Ministry of International Relations of Colombia
2014).

Re-extradition
This figure attends to a mechanism that takes place when the State
that has managed to obtain the extradition of a person, it receives a
new request by a third State, to that same subject is prosecuted or forced
to serve a sentence in its territory (Ministry of International Relations
of Colombia 2014).
64❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

Extradition in transit
Extradition in transit, implies a situation in which a State would allow
the passage through its territory, from the requested State to the Requesting
State, a person requested in extradition (Ministry of International Relations
of Colombia 2014).

Deferred extradition
Under the terms of Article 504 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
extradition deferred refers to the faculty of which provides for the National
Government to postpone the delivery of the required person until it
is judged and meets the penalty or until by preclusion of the instruction
or acquittal has finished the process, in the event that the required has
committed in Colombia (Ministry of International Relations of Colombia
2014).

Simplified extradition
The simplified extradition is a type of extradition created by Law 1453
of 2011, whose article 70, amending article 500 of the Law 906 of 2004
provided the following: “The person sought for extradition, with the
intervention of his counsel and the Public Prosecutor may renounce the
procedure laid down in this article and to request the Criminal Cassation
Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of plane the corresponding
concept, which shall within twenty (20) days if you meet the budgets
to do so. […]” (Ministry of International Relations 2014).

Principles of Extradition in Colombia

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia and the
Foundation DECOPEX the extradition is governed by ten principles
derived from the internal rules applicable and the extradition treaties
concluded by the Colombian State and that you must adhere to the full.
It is important to note that these principles arise from the commitments
made internationally by Colombia. Below in the table 1 are presented
these principles.
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙65

Table 1. Principles of extradition in Colombia

This principle establishes the obligation to dedicate expressly

Principle of Legality in the internal law of each State or in a treaty, the offense for
which extradition is requested.

The requesting State may not extend the prosecution or

Principle of the
sentencing to facts other than those which specifically have
Specialty
given rise to the extradition.

Principle of the In accordance with the principle of Jurisdiction, the required

Jurisdiction or person can only be judged by the natural judge of the case and
natural judge not by courts of exception.

Principle of the The crime for which they are made the request for extradition
prohibition of shall be established both in the Requesting and the requested
double criminality State.

Principle of the In the event that the legal system in the requesting State as
switching or the authorized to execute the death penalty against the person
prohibition of sought for extradition, must be offered sufficient guarantees
capital punishment to ensure his non-imposition in the specific case.

In accordance with the principle of non bis in idem, you

Principle of
cannot judge nor impose a penalty that is two times to a
‘non bis in idem’
person for the same act.

Principle of The reciprocity alludes so essential to the notion of the

reciprocity “application by the other Party”.

Prohibition of
delivery for political Under this principle, it is prohibited the extradition for
crimes or crimes of political crimes or crimes of opinion.
opinion

In virtue of this figure the States are under an obligation not

to transfer to an individual to another State when you verify
Non-refoulement
that such action could become a risk of exposing the
individual to serious violations of their human rights.

The obligation
The alternative obligation of States to extradite or prosecute
to extradite
those suspected of the commission of an offense.
or prosecute

Source: Foundation DECOPEX 2010 (own preparation).

66❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

Procedures in the Process of Extradition in Colombia

According to the Department of International Legal Affairs of the
Ministry of International Relations the process of extradition in Colombia
is fulfilling the following six phases presented in the table below.
Table 2. Extradition procedure in Colombia

Phase Description of the Procedure

By a note verbal, foreign authorities are applying to the Colombian
Phase
authorities have issued warrant of arrest for purposes of extradition for the
I
purpose of enforcing the arrest warrant issued by the court of that country.
The Chancellery receives from the Ministry of Justice and the law a request
Phase
for the extradition of the person required. The respective injunction is carried
II
out by the competent judicial authority, namely, a judge or a prosecutor.
• The Colombian judicial authority to present the request for extradition of
the accused or convicted person before the Ministry of Justice and the law.
• The Ministry of Justice and the Law examines the documentation
Phase submitted and to comply with the legal requirements, sends it to the
III Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which shall send to the respective diplomatic
representation.
• The diplomatic representation presents the documentation to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of the requested State.
If the language of the requested State is not the Spanish, the Chancery will
Phase
request, the translation of documentation into the language of the requested
IV
State.
The Direction of International Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, by memorandum addressed to the respective Embassy of Colombia
Phase
in the exterior, will present the documentation that supports the formal
V
request for extradition or preventive detention for purposes of extradition, to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Requested State.
The Direction of International Legal Affairs of MRE refers communications
Phase which are to take between the respective Embassy of Colombia and the
VI requested State, to the competent national authorities, through the Ministry
of Justice and the law.

Source: Department of International Legal Affairs of the Ministry of International

Relations 2014 (own preparation).

Within this process involves the Colombian authorities that are presented
in the next section indicating what its main functions are:
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙67

Authorities Involved in the Process of Extradition

in Colombia
There are five Colombian authorities on which rests the extradition
procedure in Colombia. These are the Office of the Prosecutor General
of the Nation, the Ministry of Justice and the Law, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice
and the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation.

The office of the attorney general of the nation

This Organ is responsible for sorting the capture, where precedent,
persons whose extradition is sought in the requesting State, joined to
this is added the work you put at the disposal of the authorities of the
foreign State to that person, after assortment step relevant (DECOPEX
2010).

M inistry of Justice and the Law

This Ministry plays the work to determine, through administrative act
if offers or extradite a person required by a foreign State. Its role involves
a degree of constant interaction with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and the Supreme Court of Justice (DECOPEX 2010).

M inistry of Foreign Affairs

During the processing of formalization of the request for extradition,
it shall be the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs advancing
the role of legalization of the documentation issued by the requesting
State (DECOPEX 2010).

Supreme Court of Justice - court of criminal cassation

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice comprises the judicial
review to be carried out in Colombia the extradition proceeding where
it is checked that the procedure does not violate the principles of extradition
in Colombia (DECOPEX 2010).

Public M inistry
Acts as a guarantor of human rights and of the fundamental rights
of the requested in extradition (DECOPEX 2010).
68❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

Recent Reality of Colombians Requested in Extradition

The recent reality of Colombians requested in extradition is far from
what you think the vast majority of Colombians, accustomed to relate
the term “extraditable criminal” with the group led by the members of
the Medellin Cartel in the 1990s. The profile of the extraditable today
goes from fishermen of Choco until brokers with titles abroad.
In the visits every fifteen days in the framework of the visit of men
who are carried out every Saturday at the Maximum Security Prison of
Combita is was able to detect the origins of prisoners requested in extradition
during the period 2007-2011. The most outstanding groups came from
the region of the Colombian Pacific coast especially of Tumaco and
Buenaventura with almost 35% of the prison population awaiting extradition,
followed by born the Atlantic Coast and San Andres and Providencia
with a 20% and from the Department of Antioquia a 15% and the Valle
del Cauca 10% and 20% from the rest of the country (DECOPEX 2011).

Source: DECOPEX (own preparation).

Figure 1. Main regions of origin Flag Combita prison 7

With regard to the professions the more prevalent was the independent
trader with 45%, followed by businessman with a 20% and in a smaller
proportion were officers and sub-officers of the military and police forces,
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙69

members of insurgent groups of the FARC and the ELN and people
with professions such as upholsterers, drivers, receptionists, farmers, retirees
of banking institutions, street vendors of plantain, being this minority
group by the who worked the Foundation DECOPEX.

Source: DECOPEX (own preparation).

Figure 2. Main Professions Colombians requested in extradition

Source: DECOPEX (own preparation).

Figure 3. Principal offenses of extradition requests 2007-2011
70❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

Statistics presented by the Ministry of Justice of Colombia (2012) on

the evolution of extradition between the years 2000 and 2011 indicate
that in this period of time were extradited 1,221 Colombians, being the
year 2008 in which more occurred extraditions with 207. The requesting
countries with the greatest number of requests were United States, Spain
and Peru. With regard to main crimes highlights the drug trafficking
with a 75% of Colombians extradited followed by offenses related to
drug trafficking with 11%, laundering of assets with 10%, murder 2%
and smuggling of migrants 1% (Ministry of Justice in Colombia 2012).
Here are some aspects related to the reality of the Colombian people
waiting for his extradition where highlights:

Entrapment
The Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy defines trap as: fool;
twisting, confuse artificially a business so that it cannot be clarify or
resolve. However the term entrapment in the environment of the processing
of request for extradition to the stage carried out by the police of some
countries, especially in the United States where members of its police
intelligence infiltrated into criminal organizations looking for evidence
of its actions. The problem of this stage is that in occasions presents
what in Colombia is known as “false positives”, that is to say Cases.
According to statistics produced by the Foundation DECOPEX, requests
for extradition in come in a 96% by federal courts of Member States
mainly for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering. In most
of these cases the common factor is the so-called entrapment. This
entrapment is caused by agents of the United States and Colombia who
induce to ordinary citizens to commit crimes to “show results” in the
fight against crime.
In that sense, according to an open letter of the inmates in track of
extradition, patios, 12 and 16 of the prison and the Pillory of Bogota,
addressed to the Senators, Representatives, judicial authorities of Colombia
and citizenship in general with date of 22 October 2014 it accuses the
government of create sophisticated apparatus for inducing the crime, such
as companies and posters. Similarly, argue that the DEA in partnership
with Colombian authorities mounted networks of narcotics trafficking
and money laundering, for which searches for suitable profiles, proposes
attractive business that ends up being an elaborate web to involve innocent
in illicit, with which swell their statistics “successful” against the crime.
In most cases, the tests are presented in telephone recording on a
CD that is called by the American authorities as “discovery”. On this
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙71

CD are the talks intervened to the accused where it is given an interpretation

to the desirability of the officials. For example, there were cases of people
indicted by a telephone call where reference is made to a bank transaction
for a certain amount of money and the American agencies was a
drug-trafficking operation in the amount of drugs, i.e. give you the
interpretation of the talks to your accommodation.
Request that the extradition is a legal procedure and not
administrative
The procedure for the extradition of the majority of Colombians required
by international courts takes between 12 and 18 months from the expected
to comply with the processing in the various judicial instances in Colombia
in the Office of International Affairs of the Office of the Prosecutor
General of the Nation, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Ministry
of Justice. During this time of waiting for his extradition, these Colombians
are held in maximum security prisons (Combita pilloried and) where are
confronted to the rigidity of the penitentiary system imposed by the INPEC.
Many of these prisoners claim that the role of the Supreme Court
of Justice will be more active in the legal process analyzing each of the
cases. Because the judges of this Honorable Court all you do in the
procedure is to verify that it complies with the requirements of the extradition
without legally analyze each case, becoming a systematic program, that
monthly extradite between 15 to 20 Colombians.
Prison system inadequate
The Colombians to await extradition are sent to Maximum Security
Prison where are confronted with phenomena that affect the entire prison
population of Colombia as the overcrowding, inadequate food and the
constant violation of fundamental rights on the part of the National
Penitentiary Institute INPEC to the displaced and to the relatives who
conducted weekly visits.
That is why many Colombians requested in extradition prefer to expedite
the process in national soil to be extradited promptly because they know
that in many countries requesting are better quality of life at the time
of purge their sentences, a situation.
These were the three fundamental reasons why some people affected
with the extradition process in Colombia by having relatives and friends
suffer from this ordeal decided to take reins in the matter and create
a non-governmental organization to ensure respect for these people. Part
of the experience in the foundation DECOPEX, is presented in the following
section as a contribution to the study of this topic.
72❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

E XPERIENCE IN THE DIRECTION

OF THE FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE
OF COLOMBIANS ORDERS IN EXTRADITION
(DECOPEX)

The Foundation DECOPEX was a non-governmental organization that

operated between the years 2007 and 2010 with headquarters in Bogota,
which sought the defense of the rights of Colombians requested in extradition
by international courts and was mainly comprised of relatives of persons
who were detained in the Pavilion of the seven high-security prison located
in the municipality of Combita, Boyacá.
This NGO was chaired by the author of this article as director and
legal representative, being the space where converged the relatives of
the persons arrested with request for extradition by any foreign nation.
The primary purposes of this foundation were focused on four strategic
areas of management. In the first of them was proposed to ensure respect
for the fundamental rights of the inmates and their families; in the second
one, the development of a legal strategy in the national and international
level; the third one, the realization of lobbying government bodies with
the aim of regulating the legal procedure of extradition and the fourth
area of management, was focused on the social function before the problem
of some people who were wrongfully arrested. These areas of management
of the NGO DECOPEX are presented below:

Discussion by the Respect for the Fundamental Rights

of Persons Requested in Extradition and of their
Families
It is important to highlight that until the year 2012 persons requested
in extradition that were awaiting shipment to requesting States were held
in the Maximum Security ward of the prison located in the municipality
of Combita (Boyacá). This prison is located 20 minutes from the city
of Tunja, capital of the department of Boyacá and is considered by experts
in security as the most secure of Latin America by its geographical location
and the advanced technology with which it has been endowed.
To this prison were sent prisoners requested in extradition pending
the approval by the Supreme Court of Justice, this prison has capacity
for 1,600 prisoners and made part of an agreement between the Colombian
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙73

government and the US, which sought to change the prison system in
the country, with resources from the Plan Colombia (INPEC 2016).
This penitentiary is known for the thoroughness of your security system,
having three rings of perimeter security (police, army and prison guards)
and in the internal part four rings of enclosure, one of which is composed
of sensors, which to detect a person in that corridor, will trigger the
alarm and reflectors (INPEC 2016).
The Foundation DECOPEX originated a debate with the governmental
entities within the Higher Council of Criminology aimed to improve the
conditions of detention of the prisoners in the yard seven of the High
Security Prison of Combita due to problems of overcrowding, unsanitary
conditions, violations of due process and the regime of visiting hours.
Similarly, the relatives who were visits to persons detained in this prison
saw as their fundamental rights were violated by the harsh environment
of the visits, to perform rows of up to 6 hours in the morning to temperatures
below zero degrees Celsius, receiving on occasions abuses on the part
of the staff of the National Penitentiary Institute of Colombia (INPEC).
The results of this debate within the Higher Council of Criminology
were expressed in a visit to the prison of Combita by the Deputy Minister
of Justice at the time, Guillermo Francisco Reyes González, the Ombudsman
of Boyacá Gustavo Adolfo Tobo, the Director General of the INPEC
Eduardo Morales Beltrán and sent to the Office of the Attorney General
of the nation, where they verified the precarious conditions of detention
in this prison.
As a result, since 2012 the national government took the decision to
relocate to the so-called extraditable offenses in the floor 9 of the flag
of extraditable offenses of the prison the pillory, located in the city of
Bogota, making it more feasible to visits by family members and lawyers
to persons requested in extradition.

The Development of a Legal Strategy with a View to

Collective Judicial
The strategy developed at the legal level of the Foundation DECOPEX
was developed at both the national and international levels to exercise
legal remedies in the national courts and in the inter-American Court
of Human Rights.
The internal strategy carried out by the legal team of DECOPEX was
directed to the filing of legal figures such as habeas corpus and guardianship
in order to find that the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, to consider
74❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

legally each of the cases of Colombians requested in extradition and not

given simply the administrative formalities that performed until now for
your approval.
The strategy in the international arena was based in filing a claim before
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on October 26, 2007, using
the argument that in the process of extradition of Colombians abroad
was a massive violation of the fundamental right of non bis in idem to
be judged Colombians requested in extradition twice for the same act,
one in Colombia and the other in the country which makes the requirement.

Implementation of Lobbying the National

Government and the Congress of the Republic in order
to regulate the Legal Procedure of Extradition
It is clear that the legal procedure of extradition in Colombia is limited
to the study of the Supreme Court of Justice the accomplishment of
some basic requirements and its subsequent adoption. This procedure
is considered by some jurists as a simple “notarial procedure”.
Seeking to regulate the legal procedure of extradition, the members
of the Foundation DECOPEX conducted lobbying activities before some
Senators and Representatives to the House of Colombia. This lobby with
the purpose of requesting the convening of the Higher Council of
Criminology to consider the procedure for the extradition and regulate
the procedure of international cooperation on the part of the Colombian
government, without much success, because the issue of extradition in
Colombia is still subject for public opinion which does not bring about
political dividends, but on the contrary is saved mistrust with this topic
by the belief that all requested in extradition are large kingpins of drug
trafficking.

Social Function
There is the popular belief that all persons requested in extradition
are people very wealthy by being involved in drug trafficking or money
laundering. However, the reality of some of the people arrested in the
Pavilion Seven of the prison of Combita was far from this belief.
In this pavilion converged people with professions as upholsterers,
farmers, drivers, retirees of banks, warders that sometimes did not have
the economic resources for the displacement of their families and the
payment of professional fees for lawyers. In occasions and thanks to
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙75

activities organized by the families was reached to raise money to help

these people.
Another aspect where they carried out a productive work was in the
field of the complaint. One of the main criticisms made the procedure
for extradition of Colombians abroad by the Foundation DECOPEX
was related to the continuous errors presented in the identification of
detainees by the Colombian authorities and the requesting country.
Within the time of management of the Foundation DECOPEX were
presented cases very loud in the media on innocent people who were
in detention awaiting his extradition and that over time has proved his
innocence, to be confused with other people or to give it another
interpretation to the meaning of the telephone conversations.
The case more representative was Gabriel Consuegra, the seller of bananas
extradited to the United States by mistake and it was baptized by the
authorities with the alias of the “banana”. Consuegra was accused by
the United States justice as being the holder of several bank accounts,
in various countries of the Caribbean basin, which were used to launder
assets from the business of drug trafficking. According to the process,
his son, then in 23 years and student nurse, had participated in the laundering
of dollars in Colombia.
The Lord Consuegra and his son were repatriated to Colombia after
paying a penalty of 3 years without finding charges against him and the
only evidence submitted by the Government of the United States were
a few telephone recording where the involved spoke of “green” when
referring to green bananas but the interpretation given by the police
authorities of Colombia and the United States is that related to dollars,
accusing them of belonging to a structure of money laundering.
Another case was that of Mr. Juan Vicente Gómez Castrillón who
was requested by the District Court of the United States for the Southern
District of New York and in his physical description was presented as
“a Caucasian man” and Mr. Gómez is black. In addition to this error,
more other related with their name and age, because man requested was
48 years while Castrillón was close to fulfilling the 70 years, are evidence
of the fragility of the system of extradition in Colombia.

CONCLUSIONS
Colombia was, since the nineteenth century, one of the first countries
to sign international treaties on combating crime, aware that the offense
76❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

had to be attacked beyond its borders and to prevent our country outside
refuge of criminals, according to the reasons provided at that time.
The procedure for the extradition is framed within the ideal of the
principle of universal criminal justice resulted in a mutual recognition
of judicial decisions and absolute respect for the judicial interpretation
of the domestic law of each state where to ensure respect for the fundamental
rights and guarantees procedural legal-judicial procedure of all States.
In the Colombian legal scope is defined by the Judgment C-460 of
2008 of the Constitutional Court in the following way. “The extradition
in its broadest sense is understood as a mechanism for international
cooperation that seeks to combat the crime and avoid impunity”.
Extradition is governed by ten principles derived from the internal
rules applicable and the extradition treaties concluded by the Colombian
State and that you must adhere to the full. It is important to note that
these principles arise from the commitments made internationally by
Colombia.
The procedure for the extradition of the majority of Colombians required
by international courts takes between 12 and 18 months from the expected
to comply with the processing in the various judicial instances in Colombia
in the Office of International Affairs of the Office of the Prosecutor
General of the Nation, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Ministry
of Justice. During this time of waiting for his extradition, these Colombians
are held in maximum security prisons (Combita pilloried and) where are
confronted to the rigidity of the penitentiary system imposed by the INPEC.
The primary purposes of this foundation were focused on four strategic
areas of management. In the first of them was proposed to ensure respect
for the fundamental rights of the inmates and their families; in the second
one, the development of a legal strategy in the national and international
level; the third one, the realization of lobbying government bodies with
the aim of regulating the legal procedure of extradition and the fourth
area of management, was focused on the social function before the problem
of some people who were wrongfully arrested.
The most outstanding groups of extraditable offenses in the period
of operation of the Foundation DECOPEX came from the region of
the Colombian Pacific coast especially of Tumaco and Buenaventura with
almost 35% of the prison population awaiting extradition, followed by
born the Atlantic Coast and San Andres and Providencia with a 20%
and from the Department of Antioquia a 15% and the Valle del Cauca
10% and 20% from the rest of the country.
The Extradition of Colombians from the Perspective of the Foundation for the Defense of Colombians with Orders of Extradition (DECOPEX) ❙77

REFERENCES

Barroso, C.G.(1982), Interpol and the Extradition Procedure, Madrid: Editoriales de

Derecho Reunidas.
Calaza, S. and R. Lopez(2012), International Judicial Cooperation Extradition and Arrest
Warrant, Caracas: Editorial Universidad Central de Venezuela.
______(2014), Judicial Mechanisms of International Cooperation Versus Areas of Impunity
for the Crime, Caracas: Editorial Universidad Central de Venezuela.
European Commission(2013), Study on Legal Cooperation, International Judicial
Assistance and Extradition in Material of Drug Trafficking and Other Related
Offenses, between the EU and its Member States and the Countries of Latin America
and the Caribbean, Directorate-General for Justice Luxembourg,
publications office of the European Union.
Guanumen, M.(2012), “The Narcotización Relations Colombia-United States,”
International Relations Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 221-244.
International Committee of the Red Cross(2014), Cooperation in the Field of
Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters International, The
International Committee of the Red Cross.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia(2014), Bilateral and Regional Treaties,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia.
Ministry of International Relations of Colombia(2014), Practical Guide on the
Extradition, Bogota: Ministry of International Relations of Colombia.
Ministry of Justice in Colombia(2012), Evolution of the Major Countries and Target
Extradition Offenses 2000 and 2011, Ministry of Justice in Colombia.
Molina Arrubla, C.(1980), “Critical Analysis of the Law 27 of 1980: The Treaty
of Extradition between Colombia and the United States,” Faculty of Law
and Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, Universidad Pontifical Bolivarian.
Peña J., R.(1974), “The Extradition,” Revista Chilena of Rights, Vol. 1, No. 3/4, pp.
375-380.
Penton Negrin, A.(2012), “Historical Background of the Extradition,” 22 June
2016, Autonomous University.
Pérez, L.(1984), Criminal Law: General and Special Parts, Bogota: Ed. Standard.
Pollack Sánchez, G.(1993), Procedure for Extradition, Mexico: Ed. Porrúa.
Reyes Echandía, A.(1970), Dictionary of Criminal Law, Bogota: University of Rosario.
San Martín, C.(2012), The Extradition and International Judicial Cooperation, Lima: Ed.
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.
Silva, Ricardo Méndez(2000), “The Singing of the Treaties,” Constitutional Issues,
Revista Mexicana de constitutional law 3, pp. 209-222.
The Time(2014), “The Legal History of the Extradition,” [consulted on 10 April
2016], http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-597829
Verduzco, G.R. and A.A.G.R. Verduzco(2000), “Extradition in International Law
Aspects and Trends Relevant,” No. 341.44 341.4/88, e-book, http://
www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=UCC.xis&method=post
&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=132410
78❙ AJLAS Vol. 29 No. 4

Court Judgments
Judgment C-460 of 2008. Constitutional Court. Judge Rapporteur: Dr. Nilson
Pinilla Pinilla.

Working Documents
Ramírez, J.(2010), Management Report DECOPEX Foundation, 2010.
Open letter of the inmates in track of extradition, patios, 12 and 16 of the prison
and the Pillory of Bogota, addressed to the Senators, Representatives,
judicial authorities of Colombia and citizenship in general with date of 22
October 2014.

Article Received: 2016. 06. 25.

Revised: 2016. 10. 08.
Accepted: 2016. 10. 08.